COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Co-Development and Co-Commercialization Agreement - Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc On December 16, 2016, the Company entered into a Co-Development and Co-Commercialization Agreement with and Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc (Adaptimmune) in order to facilitate a staged collaboration to evaluate, develop and commercialize next generation T cell therapies. Under the Agreement, the parties agreed to evaluate the Company’s GoTCR technology (inducible MyD88/CD40 co-stimulation, or iMC) with Adaptimmune’s affinity-optimized SPEAR® T cells for the potential to create enhanced TCR product candidates. Depending on results of the preclinical proof-of-concept phase, the parties expect to progress to a two-target co-development and co-commercialization phase. To the extent necessary, and in furtherance of the parties’ proof-of-concept and co-development efforts, the parties granted each other a royalty-free, non-transferable, non-exclusive license covering their respective technologies for purposes of facilitating such proof-of-concept and co-development efforts. In addition, as to covered therapies developed under the agreement, the parties granted each other a reciprocal exclusive license for the commercialization of such therapies. With respect to any joint commercialization of a covered therapy, the parties agreed to negotiate in good faith the commercially reasonable terms of a co-commercialization agreement. The parties also agreed that any such agreement shall provide for, among other things, equal sharing of the costs of any such joint commercialization and the calculation of profit shares as set forth in the Agreement. The Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis once the parties cease commercialization of the T cell therapies covered by the Agreement, unless earlier terminated by either party for material breach, non-performance or cessation of development, bankruptcy/insolvency, or failure to progress to co-development phase. License Agreement - Baylor In March 2016, the Company and Baylor College of Medicine (“BCM”) entered into two additional license agreements pursuant to which the Company obtained exclusive rights to technologies and patent rights owned by BCM. The Company paid BCM a nonrefundable license fee of $0.1 million and could incur additional payments upon the achievement of certain milestone events as set forth in the agreement. If the Company is successful in developing any of the licensed technologies, resulting sales would be subject to a royalty payment in the low single digits. License Agreement - Agensys, Inc. On December 10, 2015, the Company and Agensys, Inc. (“Agensys”), entered into a license agreement (the “Agensys Agreement”), pursuant to which (i) Agensys granted the Company, within the field of cell and gene therapy of diseases in humans, an exclusive, worldwide license and sublicense to its patent rights directed to prostate stem cell antigen 1 (“PSCA”) and related antibodies, and (ii) the Company granted Agensys a non-exclusive, fully paid license to the Company’s patents directed to inventions that were made by the Company in the course of developing the Company’s licensed products, solely for use with Agensys therapeutic products containing a soluble antibody that binds to PSCA or, to the extent not based upon the Company’s other proprietary technology, to non-therapeutic applications of antibodies not used within the field. As consideration for the rights granted to the Company under the Agreement, the Company agreed to pay to Agensys a non-refundable upfront fee of $3,000,000, which was included in license fee expense. The Company is also required to make aggregate milestone payments to Agensys of up to (i) $5,000,000 upon the first achievement of certain specified clinical milestones for its licensed products, (ii) $50,000,000 upon the achievement of certain specified clinical milestones for each licensed product, and (iii) $75,000,000 upon the achievement of certain sales milestones for each licensed product. The Agreement additionally provides that the Company will pay to Agensys a royalty that ranges from the mid to high single digits based on the level of annual net sales of licensed products by the Company, its affiliates or permitted sublicensees. The royalty payments are subject to reduction under specified circumstances. These milestone and royalty payments will be expensed as incurred. Under the Agreement, Agensys also was granted the option to obtain an exclusive license, on a product-by-product basis, from the Company to commercialize in Japan each licensed product developed under the Agensys Agreement that has completed a phase 2 clinical trial. As to each such licensed product, if Agensys or its affiliate, Astellas Pharma, Inc., exercises the option, the Agensys Agreement provides that the Company will be paid an option exercise fee of $5,000,000. In addition, the Agensys Agreement provides that the Company will be paid a royalty that ranges from the mid to high single digits based on the level of annual net sales in Japan of each such licensed product. If the option is exercised, the aggregate milestone payments payable by the Company to Agensys, described above with respect to each licensed product, would be reduced by up to an aggregate of $65,000,000 upon the achievement of certain specified clinical and sales milestones. The Agensys Agreement will terminate upon the expiration of the last royalty term for the products covered by the Agensys Agreement, which is the earlier of (i) the date of expiration or abandonment of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights covering any licensed products under the Agreement, (ii) the expiration of regulatory exclusivity as to a licensed product, and (iii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of a licensed product. Either party may terminate the Agensys Agreement upon a material breach by the other party that remains uncured following 60 days after the date of written notice of such breach (or 30 days if such material breach is related to failure to make payment of amounts due under the Agensys Agreement) or upon certain insolvency events. In addition, Agensys may terminate the Agensys Agreement immediately upon written notice to the Company if the Company or any of its affiliates or permitted sublicensees commences an interference proceeding or challenges the validity or enforceability of any of Agensys’ patent rights. License Agreement - BioVec On June 10, 2015, the Company and BioVec Pharma, Inc. (“BioVec”) entered into a license agreement (the “BioVec Agreement”) pursuant to which BioVec agreed to supply the Company with certain proprietary cell lines and granted to the Company a non-exclusive, worldwide license to certain of its patent rights and related know-how related to such proprietary cell lines. As consideration for the products supplied and rights granted to the Company under the BioVec Agreement, the Company agreed to pay to BioVec an upfront fee of $100,000 within ten business days of the effective date of the BioVec Agreement and a fee of $300,000 within ten business days of its receipt of the first release of GMP lot of the products licensed under the BioVec Agreement. In addition, the Company agreed to pay to BioVec an annual fee of $150,000, commencing 30 days following the first filing of an Investigational New Drug Application (an IND filing), or its foreign equivalent, for a product covered by the license; with such annual fees being creditable against any royalties payable by the Company to BioVec under the BioVec Agreement. The Company also is required to make a $250,000 milestone payment to BioVec for each of the first three licensed products to enter into a clinical phase trial and one-time milestone payments of $2,000,000 upon receipt of a registration granted by the Federal Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency on each of the Company’s first three licensed products. The BioVec Agreement additionally provides that the Company will pay to BioVec a royalty in the low single digits on net sales of products covered by the BioVec Agreement. The Company may also grant sublicensees under the licensed patent rights and know-how to third parties for limited purposes related to the use, sale and other exploitation of the products licensed under the BioVec Agreement. The BioVec Agreement will continue until terminated. The BioVec Agreement may be terminated by the Company, in its sole discretion, at any time upon 90 days written notice to BioVec. Either party may terminate the BioVec Agreement in the event of a breach by the other party of any material provision of the BioVec Agreement that remains uncured on the date that is 60 days after written notice of such failure or upon certain insolvency events that remain uncured following the date that is 30 days after the date of written notice to a party regarding such insolvency event. Litigation Securities Litigation On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso was filed against us, and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14, 2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the same court. The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of purchasers of our securities during the period from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements concerning our clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel (rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits under the Kakkar action. On March 26, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs to represent the putative class and on May 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 5, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 26, 2019 and the Company filed its reply to the opposition on September 22, 2019. On July 8, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint captioned Scott Ludovissy and Ann Gordon Trammell v. Richard A. Fair, et al. was filed against the Company’s directors and certain of the Company’s officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The lawsuit purports to seek damages on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, unjust enrichment and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to disseminate misstatements regarding the clinical trials for rivo-cel and to make false or misleading statements in the proxy materials for the Company’s 2017 annual meeting of stockholders. On July 19, 2019, another purported shareholder derivative complaint captioned Seung Paik v. Richard A. Fair, et al. was filed against the same defendants in the same court. The Ludovissy and Paik derivative causes of action have been stayed until reinstated on motion of the parties. On November 1, 2019, an additional purported shareholder derivative complaint captioned Mildred Taylor and Jessica Amor v. Richard A. Fair, et al. was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the District of Delaware. The Taylor complaint includes substantially similar factual allegations as the other matters described above and seeks to hold the defendants liable for allegedly causing the Company to make material misstatements. Other Litigation On May 29, 2019, Bellicum was served with a second amended complaint indicating that the Company had been added as an additional defendant in an ongoing civil tort lawsuit, captioned Kelly v. Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles et al., filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC681477. On July 10, 2019, a third amended complaint was filed, which alleges claims for wrongful death, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, medical battery on decedent, medical battery on individual plaintiffs, products liability - failure to warn, breach of express warranty and products liability design or manufacturing defect. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages. In response to the third amended complaint, Bellicum filed a demurrer and a motion to strike portions of the third amended complaint, both of which are set for hearing on April 10, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings. An adverse finding could materially affect our business and results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Co-Development and Co-Commercialization Agreement - Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc

On December 16, 2016, the Company entered into a Co-Development and Co-Commercialization Agreement with and Adaptimmune Therapeutics plc (Adaptimmune) in order to facilitate a staged collaboration to evaluate, develop and commercialize next generation T cell therapies. Under the Agreement, the parties agreed to evaluate the Company’s GoTCR technology (inducible MyD88/CD40 co-stimulation, or iMC) with Adaptimmune’s affinity-optimized SPEAR® T cells for the potential to create enhanced TCR product candidates. Depending on results of the preclinical proof-of-concept phase, the parties expect to progress to a two-target co-development and co-commercialization phase. To the extent necessary, and in furtherance of the parties’ proof-of-concept and co-development efforts, the parties granted each other a royalty-free, non-transferable, non-exclusive license covering their respective technologies for purposes of facilitating such proof-of-concept and co-development efforts. In addition, as to covered therapies developed under the agreement, the parties granted each other a reciprocal exclusive license for the commercialization of such therapies. With respect to any joint commercialization of a covered therapy, the parties agreed to negotiate in good faith the commercially reasonable terms of a co-commercialization agreement. The parties also agreed that any such agreement shall provide for, among other things, equal sharing of the costs of any such joint commercialization and the calculation of profit shares as set forth in the Agreement. The Agreement will expire on a country-by-country basis once the parties cease commercialization of the T cell therapies covered by the Agreement, unless earlier terminated by either party for material breach, non-performance or cessation of development, bankruptcy/insolvency, or failure to progress to co-development phase.

License Agreement - Baylor

In March 2016, the Company and Baylor College of Medicine (“BCM”) entered into two additional license agreements pursuant to which the Company obtained exclusive rights to technologies and patent rights owned by BCM. The Company paid BCM a nonrefundable license fee of $0.1 million and could incur additional payments upon the achievement of certain milestone events as set forth in the agreement. If the Company is successful in developing any of the licensed technologies, resulting sales would be subject to a royalty payment in the low single digits.

License Agreement - Agensys, Inc.

On December 10, 2015, the Company and Agensys, Inc. (“Agensys”), entered into a license agreement (the “Agensys Agreement”), pursuant to which (i) Agensys granted the Company, within the field of cell and gene therapy of diseases in humans, an exclusive, worldwide license and sublicense to its patent rights directed to prostate stem cell antigen 1 (“PSCA”) and related antibodies, and (ii) the Company granted Agensys a non-exclusive, fully paid license to the Company’s patents directed to inventions that were made by the Company in the course of developing the Company’s licensed products, solely for use with Agensys therapeutic products containing a soluble antibody that binds to PSCA or, to the extent not based upon the Company’s other proprietary technology, to non-therapeutic applications of antibodies not used within the field. As consideration for the rights granted to the Company under the Agreement, the Company agreed to pay to Agensys a non-refundable upfront fee of $3,000,000, which was included in license fee expense. The Company is also required to make aggregate milestone payments to Agensys of up to (i) $5,000,000 upon the first achievement of certain specified clinical milestones for its licensed products, (ii) $50,000,000 upon the achievement of certain specified clinical milestones for each licensed product, and (iii) $75,000,000 upon the achievement of certain sales milestones for each licensed product. The Agreement additionally provides that the Company will pay to Agensys a royalty that ranges from the mid to high single digits based on the level of annual net sales of licensed products by the Company, its affiliates or permitted sublicensees. The royalty payments are subject to reduction under specified circumstances. These milestone and royalty payments will be expensed as incurred. Under the Agreement, Agensys also was granted the option to obtain an exclusive license, on a product-by-product basis, from the Company to commercialize in Japan each licensed product developed under the Agensys Agreement that has completed a phase 2 clinical trial. As to each such licensed product, if Agensys or its affiliate, Astellas Pharma, Inc., exercises the option, the Agensys Agreement provides that the Company will be paid an option exercise fee of $5,000,000. In addition, the Agensys Agreement provides that the Company will be paid a royalty that ranges from the mid to high single digits based on the level of annual net sales in Japan of each such licensed product. If the option is exercised, the aggregate milestone payments payable by the Company to Agensys, described above with respect to each licensed product, would be reduced by up to an aggregate of $65,000,000 upon the achievement of certain specified clinical and sales milestones. The Agensys Agreement will terminate upon the expiration of the last royalty term for the products covered by the Agensys Agreement, which is the earlier of (i) the date of expiration or abandonment of the last valid claim within the licensed patent rights covering any licensed products under the Agreement, (ii) the expiration of regulatory exclusivity as to a licensed product, and (iii) 10 years after the first commercial sale of a licensed product. Either party may terminate the Agensys Agreement upon a material breach by the other party that remains uncured following 60 days after the date of written notice of such breach (or 30 days if such material breach is related to failure to make payment of amounts due under the Agensys Agreement) or upon certain insolvency events. In addition, Agensys may terminate the Agensys Agreement immediately upon written notice to the Company if the Company or any of its affiliates or permitted sublicensees commences an interference proceeding or challenges the validity or enforceability of any of Agensys’ patent rights.

License Agreement - BioVec

On June 10, 2015, the Company and BioVec Pharma, Inc. (“BioVec”) entered into a license agreement (the “BioVec Agreement”) pursuant to which BioVec agreed to supply the Company with certain proprietary cell lines and granted to the Company a non-exclusive, worldwide license to certain of its patent rights and related know-how related to such proprietary cell lines. As consideration for the products supplied and rights granted to the Company under the BioVec Agreement, the Company agreed to pay to BioVec an upfront fee of $100,000 within ten business days of the effective date of the BioVec Agreement and a fee of $300,000 within ten business days of its receipt of the first release of GMP lot of the products licensed under the BioVec Agreement. In addition, the Company agreed to pay to BioVec an annual fee of $150,000, commencing 30 days following the first filing of an Investigational New Drug Application (an IND filing), or its foreign equivalent, for a product covered by the license; with such annual fees being creditable against any royalties payable by the Company to BioVec under the BioVec Agreement. The Company also is required to make a $250,000 milestone payment to BioVec for each of the first three licensed products to enter into a clinical phase trial and one-time milestone payments of $2,000,000 upon receipt of a registration granted by the Federal Drug Administration or European Medicines Agency on each of the Company’s first three licensed products. The BioVec Agreement additionally provides that the Company will pay to BioVec a royalty in the low single digits on net sales of products covered by the BioVec Agreement. The Company may also grant sublicensees under the licensed patent rights and know-how to third parties for limited purposes related to the use, sale and other exploitation of the products licensed under the BioVec Agreement. The BioVec Agreement will continue until terminated. The BioVec Agreement may be terminated by the Company, in its sole discretion, at any time upon 90 days written notice to BioVec. Either party may terminate the BioVec Agreement in the event of a breach by the other party of any material provision of the BioVec Agreement that remains uncured on the date that is 60 days after written notice of such failure or upon certain insolvency events that remain uncured following the date that is 30 days after the date of written notice to a party regarding such insolvency event.

Litigation

Securities Litigation

On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso was filed against us, and certain of our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. A second substantially similar class action was filed on March 14, 2018 by plaintiff Frances Rudy against the same defendants in the same court. The lawsuits purport to assert class action claims on behalf of purchasers of our securities during the period from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018. The complaints allege that the defendants violated the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements concerning our clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess rivo-cel (rivogenlecleucel, formerly known as BPX-501) as an adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The complaints purport to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. On April 9, 2018, the District Court consolidated the two lawsuits under the Kakkar action. On March 26, 2019, the court appointed lead plaintiffs to represent the putative class and on May 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. On July 5, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 26, 2019 and the Company filed its reply to the opposition on September 22, 2019.

On July 8, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative complaint captioned Scott Ludovissy and Ann Gordon Trammell v. Richard A. Fair, et al. was filed against the Company’s directors and certain of the Company’s officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The lawsuit purports to seek damages on behalf of the Company against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, unjust enrichment and violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to disseminate misstatements regarding the clinical trials for rivo-cel and to make false or misleading statements in the proxy materials for the Company’s 2017 annual meeting of stockholders.

On July 19, 2019, another purported shareholder derivative complaint captioned Seung Paik v. Richard A. Fair, et al. was filed against the same defendants in the same court. The Ludovissy and Paik derivative causes of action have been stayed until reinstated on motion of the parties.

On November 1, 2019, an additional purported shareholder derivative complaint captioned Mildred Taylor and Jessica Amor v. Richard A. Fair, et al. was filed against certain of the Company’s officers and directors in the District of Delaware. The Taylor complaint includes substantially similar factual allegations as the other matters described above and seeks to hold the defendants liable for allegedly causing the Company to make material misstatements.

Other Litigation

On May 29, 2019, Bellicum was served with a second amended complaint indicating that the Company had been added as an additional defendant in an ongoing civil tort lawsuit, captioned Kelly v. Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles et al., filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. BC681477. On July 10, 2019, a third amended complaint was filed, which alleges claims for wrongful death, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, medical battery on decedent, medical battery on individual plaintiffs, products liability - failure to warn, breach of express warranty and products liability design or manufacturing defect. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages. In response to the third amended complaint, Bellicum filed a demurrer and a motion to strike portions of the third amended complaint, both of which are set for hearing on April 10, 2020.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these proceedings. An adverse finding could materially affect our business and results of operations.